I am on the road and not in a position to catch up on the respective press conferences today. Thus, reader mail, much of it in response to the pro-shutdown messages I quoted yesterday.

"This didn't happen today." Source of the photo above:

I started to post a picture per day on my normally irregular Blog...Scenes from around DC from sites that are closed due to the shutdown. Nothing shattering...the quality of life that we get to share but which, apparently, is not that important to some.

"Does it only matter if it affects you?" From someone with military connections:

I've got a question for those who think the shutdown is no big deal since it's not affecting them. Is the war in Afghanistan (which, yes, is still happening) no big deal just because you don't personally have skin in the game?

Ignoring all the other very real impacts your readers have pointed out - if the fear with ObamaCare is that it will ruin the economy, what sense does forcing 800k workers out of a paycheck to stop ObamaCare make? ...

I guess that since the shutdown isn't affecting every single person directly, we can continue to just laugh this off and say "no big deal, how does this matter to ME?" Of course, most folks could say the same thing about ObamaCare too.

"Affecting more people than she could possibly imagine":

I read your blog regularly and this is the first time I've commented on something. It is in response to a reader who was saying that most people aren't affected by the shutdown and the government workers will receive backpay. The shutdown is affecting more people that she could possibly imagine. And it's getting personal for me.

My 23 year old daughter who has a BA in Biology is working as a contractor in the Smithsonian's Natural History Museum Lab. It is a full time contract for 2 years until she goes to grad school for her PhD.

She receives no benefits. The only way she could think of accepting such a wonderful job offer was due to the ACA, she was able to stay on my health insurance plan until she is 26. She will not get backpay because of her contractor status. And I will pay her school loans, rent, and living expenses while the shutdown continues. I have always had to live a frugal lifestyle, so it's not like it is easy for me to help, but help I will.

Similarly:

So how many furloughed workers/contractors/people down the pipeline thought they had good steady jobs such that they could set up automatic EFT payments for student loans/car insurance/electric bills and now won't have automatic pay deposited? The banks will love collecting all those overdraft fees, won't they?

From someone who sells to foreign customers:

Republican extremism has impacted me: My clients are unable to do business overseas because vital approvals cannot be accessed even when the approval is already done, as offices are shut down. And court dates have had to be rescheduled after years of preparation because government attorneys are not present.

On Democrats as bullies:

I’m certain I’m not the only reader who threw up a little in my mouth after reading [a previous reader's] attempt to rationalize the GOP’s hostage-taking while scolding Democrats for being “bullies.” By what perverse twist of logic do members of a political faction who threaten to blow up the global economy because they don’t like a law that extends health benefits to millions of uninsured citizens become victims of “Democratic bullying?” The law survived a grinding legislative process in which the full fury of the American Right Wing was unleashed to destroy it, it survived a Supreme Court challenge, and it survived an election in which “repealing Obamacare” was the centerpiece of the losing side’s campaign.

Truly, the only shame I feel right now is witnessing the tantrums and displays of self-righteousness and self-pity by what is likely one of the most privileged groups of people in modern history.

What will they give up that will hurt them? Prom a professor in the Midwest:

In all of the debt-ceiling, government shutdown argument, I keep waiting to hear from the people who argue that the debt is a looming disaster any statement of something they'd be willing to give up that works against their own interests or comfort.

I agree that the level of borrowing in the U.S. is a real concern, particularly as we face the coming retirement and military healthcare tsunamis. Fixing that will require, among other things, tax increases that will at least get the U.S. tax system back to its historical levels of taxation. It seems to me that anyone who isn't willing to consider this is simply not serious.

"Democracy requires accepting defeat":

As I have sat with my earlier comments on the subject, something else has come into focus. It's a corollary to your recent post which asked: What would the discussion have been had the Democrats acted the same way as the current Republicans in the face of the GW Bush tax cuts?

Again, rather than look at how the reporting would have been different, let's look at what WAS different.

The thing which has historically made this country's contentious form of government work is that, when a party loses, it acknowledges, respects and acts according to that constitutional decision of the people. And so, when a victorious president puts forth legislative proposals, there is some recognition and respect for the legitimacy of his power.

GW Bush, from the 2000 election, was the least legitimately elected president in my lifetime. And although there was a lot of noise about a stolen election and the illegitimacy of it, the Democratic legislators, following Gore's graceful exit, nevertheless accorded him the legitimacy that the Supreme Court decision bestowed upon it. Constitutional processes were followed, and there was an answer. And the effects of it were, begrudgingly, accepted. And, so, the Bush tax cuts, although vehemently opposed, were enacted without all of the crap we are seeing today.

There is no question that Obama won both of his elections. There can be no serious issue as to the legitimacy of his office, and respect for his power. I gag at all of the Republicans standing up and speaking about their respect for the Constitution, when they refuse to abide one of the most important aspects of Constitutional government: when you lose, you acknowledge the will of the people; you accept that you lost. It doesn't mean that you give up on what you stand for; but you recognize that your power is eclipsed, and, for the good of the country and its Constitutional proceses, you accept your defeat.

The functioning of our country depends upon consensus as to its institutions and underlying processes; and that there are boundaries that you do not cross, because to do so would harm the foundations of the institutions. See, e.g., the filibuster.

Starting with Newt Gingrich in 1994, the Republicans began crossing those boundaries, and, as a result, the fabric of consensus about the procedural processes of our institutions has started to fray. Remember when members of Congress were encouraged to socialize across parties, and to be social acquaintances of people across the aisle? Starting with Gingrich, that was abolished, which has eliminated one of the most important ingredients to the functioning of Congress: the assumption of goodwill, and the ability to compromise.

About the Author

James Fallows is a national correspondent for The Atlantic and has written for the magazine since the late 1970s. He has reported extensively from outside the United States and once worked as President Carter's chief speechwriter. His latest book is China Airborne.

Most Popular

His paranoid style paved the road for Trumpism. Now he fears what’s been unleashed.

Glenn Beck looks like the dad in a Disney movie. He’s earnest, geeky, pink, and slightly bulbous. His idea of salty language is bullcrap.

The atmosphere at Beck’s Mercury Studios, outside Dallas, is similarly soothing, provided you ignore the references to genocide and civilizational collapse. In October, when most commentators considered a Donald Trump presidency a remote possibility, I followed audience members onto the set of The Glenn Beck Program, which airs on Beck’s website, theblaze.com. On the way, we passed through a life-size replica of the Oval Office as it might look if inhabited by a President Beck, complete with a portrait of Ronald Reagan and a large Norman Rockwell print of a Boy Scout.

Should you drink more coffee? Should you take melatonin? Can you train yourself to need less sleep? A physician’s guide to sleep in a stressful age.

During residency, Iworked hospital shifts that could last 36 hours, without sleep, often without breaks of more than a few minutes. Even writing this now, it sounds to me like I’m bragging or laying claim to some fortitude of character. I can’t think of another type of self-injury that might be similarly lauded, except maybe binge drinking. Technically the shifts were 30 hours, the mandatory limit imposed by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, but we stayed longer because people kept getting sick. Being a doctor is supposed to be about putting other people’s needs before your own. Our job was to power through.

The shifts usually felt shorter than they were, because they were so hectic. There was always a new patient in the emergency room who needed to be admitted, or a staff member on the eighth floor (which was full of late-stage terminally ill people) who needed me to fill out a death certificate. Sleep deprivation manifested as bouts of anger and despair mixed in with some euphoria, along with other sensations I’ve not had before or since. I remember once sitting with the family of a patient in critical condition, discussing an advance directive—the terms defining what the patient would want done were his heart to stop, which seemed likely to happen at any minute. Would he want to have chest compressions, electrical shocks, a breathing tube? In the middle of this, I had to look straight down at the chart in my lap, because I was laughing. This was the least funny scenario possible. I was experiencing a physical reaction unrelated to anything I knew to be happening in my mind. There is a type of seizure, called a gelastic seizure, during which the seizing person appears to be laughing—but I don’t think that was it. I think it was plain old delirium. It was mortifying, though no one seemed to notice.

Why did Trump’s choice for national-security advisor perform so well in the war on terror, only to find himself forced out of the Defense Intelligence Agency?

How does a man like retired Lieutenant General Mike Flynn—who spent his life sifting through information and parsing reports, separating rumor and innuendo from actionable intelligence—come to promote conspiracy theories on social media?

Perhaps it’s less Flynn who’s changed than that the circumstances in which he finds himself—thriving in some roles, and flailing in others.

In diagnostic testing, there’s a basic distinction between sensitivity, or the ability to identify positive results, and specificity, the ability to exclude negative ones. A test with high specificity may avoid generating false positives, but at the price of missing many diagnoses. One with high sensitivity may catch those tricky diagnoses, but also generate false positives along the way. Some people seem to sift through information with high sensitivity, but low specificity—spotting connections that others can’t, and perhaps some that aren’t even there.

“Well, you’re just special. You’re American,” remarked my colleague, smirking from across the coffee table. My other Finnish coworkers, from the school in Helsinki where I teach, nodded in agreement. They had just finished critiquing one of my habits, and they could see that I was on the defensive.

I threw my hands up and snapped, “You’re accusing me of being too friendly? Is that really such a bad thing?”

“Well, when I greet a colleague, I keep track,” she retorted, “so I don’t greet them again during the day!” Another chimed in, “That’s the same for me, too!”

Unbelievable, I thought. According to them, I’m too generous with my hellos.

When I told them I would do my best to greet them just once every day, they told me not to change my ways. They said they understood me. But the thing is, now that I’ve viewed myself from their perspective, I’m not sure I want to remain the same. Change isn’t a bad thing. And since moving to Finland two years ago, I’ve kicked a few bad American habits.

Why the ingrained expectation that women should desire to become parents is unhealthy

In 2008, Nebraska decriminalized child abandonment. The move was part of a "safe haven" law designed to address increased rates of infanticide in the state. Like other safe-haven laws, parents in Nebraska who felt unprepared to care for their babies could drop them off in a designated location without fear of arrest and prosecution. But legislators made a major logistical error: They failed to implement an age limitation for dropped-off children.

Within just weeks of the law passing, parents started dropping off their kids. But here's the rub: None of them were infants. A couple of months in, 36 children had been left in state hospitals and police stations. Twenty-two of the children were over 13 years old. A 51-year-old grandmother dropped off a 12-year-old boy. One father dropped off his entire family -- nine children from ages one to 17. Others drove from neighboring states to drop off their children once they heard that they could abandon them without repercussion.

Democrats who have struggled for years to sell the public on the Affordable Care Act are now confronting a far more urgent task: mobilizing a political coalition to save it.

Even as the party reels from last month’s election defeat, members of Congress, operatives, and liberal allies have turned to plotting a campaign against repealing the law that, they hope, will rival the Tea Party uprising of 2009 that nearly scuttled its passage in the first place. A group of progressive advocacy groups will announce on Friday a coordinated effort to protect the beneficiaries of the Affordable Care Act and stop Republicans from repealing the law without first identifying a plan to replace it.

They don’t have much time to fight back. Republicans on Capitol Hill plan to set repeal of Obamacare in motion as soon as the new Congress opens in January, and both the House and Senate could vote to wind down the law immediately after President-elect Donald Trump takes the oath of office on the 20th.

Trinidad has the highest rate of Islamic State recruitment in the Western hemisphere. How did this happen?

This summer, the so-called Islamic State published issue 15 of its online magazine Dabiq. In what has become a standard feature, it ran an interview with an ISIS foreign fighter. “When I was around twenty years old I would come to accept the religion of truth, Islam,” said Abu Sa’d at-Trinidadi, recalling how he had turned away from the Christian faith he was born into.

At-Trinidadi, as his nom de guerre suggests, is from the Caribbean island of Trinidad and Tobago (T&T), a country more readily associated with calypso and carnival than the “caliphate.” Asked if he had a message for “the Muslims of Trinidad,” he condemned his co-religionists at home for remaining in “a place where you have no honor and are forced to live in humiliation, subjugated by the disbelievers.” More chillingly, he urged Muslims in T&T to wage jihad against their fellow citizens: “Terrify the disbelievers in their own homes and make their streets run with their blood.”

A professor of cognitive science argues that the world is nothing like the one we experience through our senses.

As we go about our daily lives, we tend to assume that our perceptions—sights, sounds, textures, tastes—are an accurate portrayal of the real world. Sure, when we stop and think about it—or when we find ourselves fooled by a perceptual illusion—we realize with a jolt that what we perceive is never the world directly, but rather our brain’s best guess at what that world is like, a kind of internal simulation of an external reality. Still, we bank on the fact that our simulation is a reasonably decent one. If it wasn’t, wouldn’t evolution have weeded us out by now? The true reality might be forever beyond our reach, but surely our senses give us at least an inkling of what it’s really like.

The same part of the brain that allows us to step into the shoes of others also helps us restrain ourselves.

You’ve likely seen the video before: a stream of kids, confronted with a single, alluring marshmallow. If they can resist eating it for 15 minutes, they’ll get two. Some do. Others cave almost immediately.

This “Marshmallow Test,” first conducted in the 1960s, perfectly illustrates the ongoing war between impulsivity and self-control. The kids have to tamp down their immediate desires and focus on long-term goals—an ability that correlates with their later health, wealth, and academic success, and that is supposedly controlled by the front part of the brain. But a new study by Alexander Soutschek at the University of Zurich suggests that self-control is also influenced by another brain region—and one that casts this ability in a different light.

The combination of suspicion and reverence that people feel toward the financially successful isn’t unique to the modern era, but reflects a deep ambivalence that goes back to the Roman empire.

In the early 20th century, Dale Carnegie began to travel the United States delivering to audiences a potent message he would refine and eventually publish in his 1936 bestseller, How To Win Friends and Influence People: “About 15 percent of one’s financial success is due to one’s technical knowledge and about 85 percent is due to skill in human engineering—to personality and the ability to lead people.” Carnegie, who based his claim on research done at institutes founded by the industrialist Andrew Carnegie (unrelated), thus enshrined for Americans the notion that leadership was the key to success in business—that profit might be less about engineering things and more about engineering people. Over 30 million copies of Carnegie’s book have been sold since its publication.